Richard Gage and Barbara Honegger show new light on Building 7 ... LITERALLY AND FIGURATIVELY

Last night in Manhattan, at 9:11 PM, Barbara Honegger and Richard Gage surprised many people both in the 9/11 Truth Movement and amongst many people who believe the official story about 9/11 to be true.
DJ Green Arrow spoke to several people, including Gage, Honegger, and Comedian/Activist Dick Gregory about the remarkable feat.

What really happened? It was HUGE . People looking up to the sky last night, which was pretty clear, discovered that not only wee the two towers represented by incredible beams of light reaching up from Ground Zero to represent Tower 1 & 2. observers also witnessed an incredible feat of Engineering mixed with a very artistic statement...

A HUGE LIGHT representing BUILDING SEVEN!

Honegger, in Gage's words, put a lot of time and a lot more money to make sure that the Pickup truck that carried the powerful lights would actually roll.

It was incredible. DJ Green Arrow rolled tape throughout the entire event and pictures and video are imminently forthcoming.

Look for ae911truth.org to have some of the best footage available, as several cameras documented this.

On the street, people reported that calls flooded CBS News, and that callers repeatedly heard, when the newsroom picked up:
"We don't know what it is... CLICK (phone hangs up)".

At one point, a helicopter flew over the incredible "LIGHT SHOW". Everyone on the street cheered.

Speculation amongst bystanders was that if there was an attempt to shut the light down, that would look like a coverup.

There were reports that one could see the light in Pennsylvania and in Brooklyn Heights (just over the bridge), though this reporter has not seen evidence of this.

>>Honegger, in Gage's words, put a lot of time and a lot more money to make sure that the Pickup truck that carried the powerful lights would actually roll.

Barbara Honegger has an interesting history of claims that people should be aware of. She first claimed that Iran did 9/11 -- I was on an email list where she was saying that and Mike Ruppert got into arguments with her about it. Other claims are described here, from oilempire:

"Navy employee Barbara Honegger, who is active in 9/11 conspiracy issues, offers the piggy back theory -- the hijackers found out about the overlapping war games and timed their attack to take advantage of the confusion. This is probably a limited hang out designed to keep military officers from whistleblowing, since the claim that al-Qaeda supposedly compromised US operational security procedures could be very effective at keeping insiders from explaining what they know about the exercises. Honegger has since made ludicrous claims that "shoe bomber" Richard Reid was really Osama and that the Pentagon was hit several minutes before it was struck by the plane (probably false leads designed to soak up time and energy on a wild goose chase)."http://www.oilempire.us/map.html

and in the future, if you have a comment about my personal vetting ability, please contact me directly, as i prefer feedback such as this at my email: djgreenarrow@gmail.com

Also, if you are questioning Honegger's integrity, Richard Gage might or might not defend her... I simply reported the facts of who what when where how and why.

If you think that associating with Honegger is not in Richard Gage's interest, and it was HIS vetting (in that sense of the word) that was in error, I suggest you need to tell him, if it's that urgent.

If you are referring to someone else, I have misunderstood you. Might you give some clarity?

Also, i don't want to sound sarcastic... I just have no idea of who you are suggesting is untrustworthy besides Honegger. Are you suggesting that Gage is at fault for associating himself with her? Is that his vetting, mine, or in fact Victronix is Victronix or another moderator at fault for allowing my blog to appear.

Who benefits in the case of this story is at least the few people who commented positively, as well as anyone else who saw it....

As DRG quoted Gandhi in D9D... "Truth stands".

All I printed were facts. if it is erroneous to print that Honegger was involved because in your opinion she is not trustworthy, then to express that concern here, to me, a blogger, rather than simply to express it directly to Gage is sheer folly, because I nor no one else reading this with the exception of Gage shall be able to "re-gage(gauge)" Richard Gage's sense of choice about whom it is appropriate for him to associate with and trust.

Please note the irony in the fact that the ae911truth.org info about this technical feat, praised by Gage, while criticized herein, is on the front page as a RECENT HEADLINES.
Is this a case of Emotional Resistance to 9/11 Truth as Ken Jenkins has written about? I'm not suggesting that, it might and might not be true, depending on whom it involves.

Regardless, it may be a case of "Believe it or not" and you didn't believe me or found my report credible.

I suggest everyone listen to the "Staying Reasonable with 9/11 Truth" interview with John Bursill on Visibility 9/11, because to reduce even the possibility of ae911truth.org and Honegger being able to do this, even if it WAS bad information, allows for any individual to posit within him or herself of the greatness or shallowness of such an idea.

This is in the same sense as in Hakim Bey's concept of "Poetic Terrorism", and in the vein of better bad news.

For everyone's sake, let's respect that this is a moderated forum and also let people have the freedom to make mistakes.

If you go against that right, you deny any person's ability to use poetic license, and thus the Onion and other satire are not allowed, as well as you deny the ability to have un peer-reviewed journalism.
When news is breaking, it's impossible to have peer review, especially on Blogger.

You want to get the word out as accurately as possible. To speak the Truth that is the LOVE for truth that is behind a story WITH LOVE.

If the story makes you angry, you want to speak of the anger WITH anger.

I LOVE this story. in fact, when I was working with Ted Walter and NYC CAN, I told him that we should photoshop a third tower or actually add a third tower to all of the posters that were up around town that only showed too. During a last minute brainstorming session between Ted, me, and another person we were suggesting that in addition to going out and putting up nyccan stuff around town with wheat paste, we should add a third tower.
This idea later filtered into the collective unconscious, unacted upon by me or Ted or anyone else, until i discovered the third tower graphic on someone's Facebook Page.
Gage reacted with a smile (I have it on film) when I told him that I had thought of the idea (it seems so obvious) and related the above story.
I will release all the footage as soon as i can. Many people took a lot of pictures. We all posed in front of the beams many, many times. EVERYONE wanted to be a part of the miracle that, whether untrustworthy in your discretion or not, Barbara Honegger in fact did take loving responsibility for, at least within the perspective and then in the words of Gage.

I never said "trust me! I'm telling the truth". The truth stands, and Gage needs to be applauded for his efforts, wholeheartedly.

What it does to talk about vetting, when the truth demands not only accuracy, it demands the right to use poetic license in order to reach our fellow citizens to awaken them is beyond me.

To quibble about de minimis issues is disrespectful to the one person 'out there' right now, who is suffering, because of the big lie. Until there is no struggling and suffering about 9/11, we must in the moment weigh the choice to be a loser and thus be counterproductive and to do what is necessary to illuminate the truth.

I'm not calling anyone a loser, Victronix, and whoever, whomever else you want to think I might be 'speaking against'. I don't argue, and thus I'm not going to get on a gameboard of who's the better activist...

the most-vetted, whatever.

In the name of poetic license, I say that we need to come together on the basis of what we have in common. We want the truth exposed as elegantly as possible. as easily as possible. at the right pace.

let us do this, and please, if you have a problem with something i write, send me an email so I may edit the post.

Iwrote my truth, and I will present video evidence which you can vet yourself. in the name of poetic license, you must allow diversity of expression. A lot of people don't know about what makes good journalism... journalism schools now are merged with PR... a lot of people might understand the word 'vetting' and may not be able to fully grok it... fully understand it.

My footage will be available soon, after I get my computer fixed. Ironically, i dropped it while we were posing for pictures, right in front of the truck that held the lights.

My footage will correspond and be consistent with what I wrote.

Please be consistent in your suggestion about vetting to allow people to understand to whom it is you are specifically referring to in regards to it.

otherwise, ironically, you are in my perspective, again, quite ironically, doing a disservice to the concept of vetting, as to vet allows complete understanding... and in your use of the language, we have no idea how to 'vet' whether your suggestion is accurate or not. It might be that some are not vetting correctly, it might not be. Again, we have no idea whom you are referring to, and thus, we have one more misunderstood 9/11 Truth Activist, which is not cool with me, and insofar as it impacts someone's life who is being affected by the lies, is ultimately a distraction. A forgivable one, of course, and still a complete waste of time.

within the response I deliberately included a reference to Hakim Bey's "Poetic Terrorism". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiLYeswlaqY
Unless you see what Bey defined as being Poetic Terrorism is, there's no way you can see how Self-Referential what I wrote is.